PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Kucinich: Corporations can legally buy elections


KILLER_CLOWN
01-25-2012, 08:12 AM
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) on Tuesday called for Congress to support a constitutional amendment that would overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. the Federal Elections Commission.

“One of the biggest stumbling blocks to America’s economic recovery is corporations can legally buy elections and then influence policies which move millions of jobs out of America, which escape taxation by off shoring profits, which cash in on wars, which press military industrial spending through the roof,” he said on the House floor.

“While we pledge allegiance to the Red, White, and Blue, corporations, whose only allegiance is to green, are selling out America and they are becoming ever more powerful because of a Supreme Court decision in Citizens United which effectively turns this government into an auction where policies may go to the highest bidder.”

Kucinich has introduced House Joint Resolution 100, a proposed constitutional amendment that would completely bar interest groups from influencing elections by requiring that all federal campaigns be financed exclusively with public funds and prohibit any expenditures from any other source.

“I urge my colleagues to support H.J.Res. 100 so that we can break the golden shackles which are imprisoning this government right now and get rid of corporate influence once and for all,” he said.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mzmCmwRLhr4?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/24/kucinich-corporations-can-legally-buy-elections/

whoman69
01-25-2012, 01:29 PM
Wow, no comments on this. So the status quo is perfectly fine?

mikey23545
01-25-2012, 01:39 PM
Dennis Kucinich:


http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/5481/dep4572040straightjacke.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/252/dep4572040straightjacke.jpg/)


KILLER_CLOWN:


http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/2405/clownnk.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/717/clownnk.jpg/)

KILLER_CLOWN
01-25-2012, 02:02 PM
Dennis Kucinich:


http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/5481/dep4572040straightjacke.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/252/dep4572040straightjacke.jpg/)


KILLER_CLOWN:


http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/2405/clownnk.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/717/clownnk.jpg/)

wannabe mikey... crickets.....

mikey23545
01-25-2012, 02:05 PM
wannabe mikey... crickets.....

OK, I know I shouldn't bother to ask, but wannabe what?

KILLER_CLOWN
01-25-2012, 02:17 PM
OK, I know I shouldn't bother to ask, but wannabe what?

Relevant? ;)

That was a bad picture of me.

mikey23545
01-25-2012, 02:20 PM
Relevant? ;)

That was a bad picture of me.

Well, I admit I expected much worse...ROFL

orange
01-25-2012, 02:28 PM
Wow, no comments on this. So the status quo is perfectly fine?

They're too busy in the other thread screeching about how the moneyed interests control the country. They'll be by shortly to slam Kamrade Kucinich for trying to get money out of politics.

orange
01-25-2012, 03:19 PM
John McCain Goes Off Message, Predicts 'Major Scandal' Related To Unlimited Political Giving

First Posted: 01/25/2012 1:35 pm Updated: 01/25/2012 2:55 pm

WASHINGTON -- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was supposed to do a conference call with reporters Wednesday hitting Newt Gingrich on behalf of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign.

Things didn't exactly go as planned.

McCain did talk about the announced topic, how the number of earmarks in Congress increased when Gingrich was House Speaker from 1994 to 1998. But his attacks on Gingrich (R-Ga.) were vague and listless.

"I can't remember any specifics," McCain said at one point.

But when a reporter asked McCain about the increasingly "negative tone" of the Republican primary, that got the "maverick" off in a direction he was interested in going: campaign finance.

"I dislike it, and the fact is that we all decry negative ads and negative tones but it does move voters and as long as it moves voters it's going to happen," McCain said.

"As you know, I think the outside super PACs and others is so disgraceful that I'm ashamed of the United States Supreme Court in their decision on United," McCain said, referring to the 2010 Citizens United decision that allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money in political elections.

The decision by the nation's highest court gutted rules put in place by legislation sponsored by McCain and then-Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) in 2002.

McCain went further.

"I predict to you there will be a major scandal associated with the Supreme Court decision on Citizens versus United. There is too much money washing around," he said.

The problem, as a reporter on the call pointed out, is that McCain and Romney are at odds on the issue of campaign finance.

Romney has decried the role of super PACs, calling them a "disaster." But his issue is not with the unrestricted giving. He has said he remains in favor of placing no limits on campaign expenditures. The only change he has said he would make is to do away with super PACs and let donors give unlimited funds directly to candidates and campaigns.

"We already have unlimited contributions," Romney said last month in an interview with Real Clear Politics. "The question is: Is the campaign going to be responsible for them or is the campaign going to not have control of its own message?"

McCain shrugged off the disagreement, arguing that jobs, the economy and national security are the key issues that voters care about.

He tried to turn the campaign finance discussion in a direction that was aimed at Gingrich, going after Sheldon Adelson, a Las Vegas casino magnate who is the largest donor to a super PAC supporting Gingrich.

"I note with some interest that a casino owner has given $5 million and his wife has now given $5 million, so you have one family throwing in $10 million into a primary race. I don't think that's what our Founding Fathers had in mind," McCain said.

And with that, Romney communications director Gail Gitcho promptly ended the call.

"Senator McCain, thank you very much for taking the time today," she said. "I appreciate your comments and we'll talk to everybody tomorrow."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/25/john-mccain-campaign-finance_n_1231341.html?ref=politics

whoman69
01-25-2012, 04:11 PM
Am I reading too much into it, or is McCain accusing someone in the Supreme Court of taking money?

orange
01-25-2012, 04:14 PM
I doubt that. I think he's talking about a direct link to a candidate (coordinating) or perhaps a big foreign buy in.

RaiderH8r
01-25-2012, 05:40 PM
Apparently the unions don't appreciate the competition.

orange
01-25-2012, 05:43 PM
Apparently the unions don't appreciate the competition.

The right wing's amazing reading comprehension once again demonstrated.

"proposed constitutional amendment that would completely bar interest groups from influencing elections by requiring that all federal campaigns be financed exclusively with public funds and prohibit any expenditures from any other source."

RaiderH8r
01-25-2012, 05:53 PM
The right wing's amazing reading comprehension once again demonstrated.

"proposed constitutional amendment that would completely bar interest groups from influencing elections by requiring that all federal campaigns be financed exclusively with public funds and prohibit any expenditures from any other source."

They could have offered that at any time the unions were buying elections but now that there is some competition it suddenly becomes a good idea. F them.

Anybody should be allowed to give any amount at any time they want to any candidate they choose. The only requirement is that it be disclosed in a timely fashion.

And fuck public financing. I'm not paying for a neo-communist lemming to run for anything. They want to run they need to work harder than just petitioning the gov't for free cabbage.

Lastly public financing inherently and overwhelmingly favors those who can self finance campaigns and/or incumbents. So....really wouldn't change shit.

Brock
01-25-2012, 05:56 PM
They could have offered that at any time the unions were buying elections but now that there is some competition it suddenly becomes a good idea. F them.

Right, because companies haven't been doing it since the dawn of time.

Bump
01-25-2012, 06:40 PM
WHY DONT CONSERVATIVES SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE OP?!?!?!?

WHY? Why is this perfectly acceptable to them?

whoman69
01-25-2012, 06:46 PM
They could have offered that at any time the unions were buying elections but now that there is some competition it suddenly becomes a good idea. F them.

Anybody should be allowed to give any amount at any time they want to any candidate they choose. The only requirement is that it be disclosed in a timely fashion.

And **** public financing. I'm not paying for a neo-communist lemming to run for anything. They want to run they need to work harder than just petitioning the gov't for free cabbage.

Lastly public financing inherently and overwhelmingly favors those who can self finance campaigns and/or incumbents. So....really wouldn't change shit.

Then you accept the status quo that money controls Washington.

I don't think you know what communist really means.

orange
01-25-2012, 06:47 PM
WHY DONT CONSERVATIVES SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE OP?!?!?!?

WHY? Why is this perfectly acceptable to them?

They're waiting for a guy who comes into every thread claiming that all American politics is a shadow play to tell them why reforming it is out of the question?

Bump
01-25-2012, 06:55 PM
They're waiting for a guy who comes into every thread claiming that all American politics is a shadow play to tell them why reforming it is out of the question?

I swear to God. Every conservative I have ever met in person, thinks this is a great nation full of strong ethics and leadership when there is a republican in office. When there is a democrat in office, they're a terrible president. Then when it goes back to republican, they think everything is PERFECT and nothing wrong at all.

Do they all think this way? Do they just not have the ability to put their owns thoughts together? I do not understand their logic or reasoning. They cannot see something that's right in front of their faces.

ClevelandBronco
01-25-2012, 09:43 PM
Howzabout a Congressional term limits amendment while you're at it, Dennis?